Yes. But it can only reverse if the red was clearly wrong. So if it is "orange" it stays with the call on the field. I agree with MR of the risk of that influencing refs to lean yellow (even more than they already do). And as those "orange" plays are "upheld" on VAR, it teaches that those are just yellow.
Kuipers was interviewed after the match and said (translating from Dutch), "I have seen that he comes in high with his foot and hits him lightly." The VAR immediately thought Red Card and signaled the need to review. Personally, I think this was a great example of how VAR is supposed to work.
There are always two errors. In statistics we call them Type I and Type II. In layman’s terms, convicting an innocent person in error, or not finding enough evidence to convict a guilty person and this setting them free. If you are going to make one, make the second. Starting Yellow and being told to look to see if you need to go red is preferable to starting red and having to downcheck it to yellow.
The problem with referees applying this kind of reasoning is that VAR isn't a fresh look. It is only designed to catch clear errors. The more refs think like this, the more plays will have cautions even though the better call would have been a red.
FRO-PAR in Serie A. Just a reminder to the crew - if it takes over 7 minutes to review, it's not a clear and obvious error. Absolutely ridiculous VAR review.
VAR or no VAR, "defensive" refereeing has pretty much become the norm at the highest levels of the games pretty much this entire decade. We've gone through three World Cups, two European Championships and countless UCL knockout games this decade and how many red cards for SFP have been given? I don't think we saw any at the Euros in 2012 and 2016. We didn't have one this entire World Cup in Russia. I think we went through the entire knockout stages of the 2014 World Cup without one and there might have been one in South Africa in 2010 in the knockout stages. On top of my head the only SFP red card I can think of in the CL was Nani's and Cakir pretty much started to go with the safer decision every single time since then. So it's not just a VAR problem. As you are probably implying or mentioning I think VAR will just make the bar more even higher than it already is which practically means it will never be given.
It's possible the phrase "clearly wrong" translates differently in German, I suppose... https://streamable.com/a6q9r
1:19 of the below video probably shows the best angle that argues for DOGSO (when you combine it with the angle from the top of the penalty area). Still, given the subjective factor about likelihood to control the ball, I don't understand how this could be clearly wrong to show yellow, particularly given how rare it is to upgrade to red for VC/SFP:
I know the stereotype of the Italians is that they like to put on a show and overdramatize everything, but wow. I guess I do need to watch more of those Serie A games on ESPN+. When I compared that review to the two reviews in the Ajax-PSV game mentioned above, it shows me two things. First, having the referee do an on-field review is useful to reduce the time for these reviews in many cases. Second, the Dutch seem to have the concept of how VAR is supposed to work more than the Italians. As I've said before, I want VAR to be there to help with calls like the Chelsea-Cardiff offside call and the missed red in the Ajax-PSV game. I don't really even care that much if a bang-bang offside call isn't overturned even if it's a more fact-based decision. Fix the obvious errors without delaying the game too much, and I'm happy with VAR.
As I watched this, I did try very hard to find a way to determine that yellow was "clearly wrong". I can't. This is another one of those cases where the call on the field - whatever that call is - should stand. If the initial call was DOGSO, I couldn't find a way to clearly say that a DOGSO call would have been wrong. Not only is control a question, but I'd also say the defender coming from the attacker's left could (and I do stress COULD) have made a play on the ball had the whistle not blown. I see this as much more of a "re-refereeing" decision as opposed to a clear and obvious error.
Though I, of course, agree with your overall assessment here (otherwise I would have never posted this). I think the argument from the VAR and CR would be that if the attacker in possession of the ball never has to try to hurdle that foul challenge and break stride, there's no chance the defender on the left could effectively challenge before he got a shot off. The aerial camera from behind play at 1:19 is what shows that pretty well. While that conclusion resonates with me if we're analyzing this clip in a classroom to get to the preferred on-field decision, it still doesn't reach the standard of "clearly wrong" when we're trying to assess the initial decision. Yellow or red could be defensible here in real-time and second-guessing either decision is, as you said, "re-refereeing."
MLS upgrade to SFP: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2019/04/06/dc-uniteds-wayne-rooney-sent-fourth-time-career-first-mls
I'm also curious how the AR appeared to be staring at this from 10 yards away and missed this. Maybe a case of "VAR will cover us if it was really bad".
Meanwhile in Belgium, someone felt it was a clear and obvious error to not give a PK here and incredibly the referee agreed. https://streamable.com/v0fge
https://www.voetbalprimeur.nl/video...goedkope-penalty-van-videoscheids-mulder.html Ridiculous var - intervention
Here is how they work it in the A-League. This page, http://bit.ly/2Z8KZj7, has a couple of videos with audio between the refereeing crew. Particular is the interpretation of clear and obvious error for the goal decision with possible offside, in spite of the camera view and graphics, https://players.brightcove.net/5519514571001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6024185306001 and a recommendation to review for an ugrade to red after a serious foul play. https://players.brightcove.net/551951471001/default_default/index.html?videoId=6024182604001 (have patience, they load very slowly)
I can't even begin to understand what is going through the officials' minds in the Belgium incident. In the Dutch one, sure it's probably a foul in a vacuum, but clearly wrong not to call that? Yikes. In an example of a good use of VAR in the Netherlands: Of course, compare this to the Nani headbutt and the Walker headbutt. If the aggrieved player doesn't comically drop to ground in this situation, is VAR intervening? One can hope. But so far we've seen no evidence to support that hypothetical.
There were 2 controversial VAR decisions during the Prague "S" Derby on Sunday. While managers and fans here overall support VAR it's creating discussion about VAR training and resources (available camera angles). The first decision sequence begins at about 0:53, the 2nd at about 1:38. The first decision war originally ruled a penalty and overturned, and in the officials defense if he only sees the angles from behind the keeper it looks more 50-50 foul/dive. The angle from behind the attacking player shows clear contact from the keepers lunge. The 2nd decision was not seen in play but subject to review, and it looks from any viewpoint to be very clear and deliberate contact while the ball is in the air. The league officiating commission issued a statement that both should have been penalties.
In the first one, he clearly cancels the yellow card to the goalkeeper. Did he then caution the attacker for simulation? I'm not quite sure how a referee could come to the conclusion that the incident was a "no-foul/no-dive" situation. It's clearly either one or the other. And I agree it's definitely a foul. Agreed. I guess the only argument a referee can have there is that the holding was on a player who was never going to get the ball. But that shouldn't matter. The hold was blatant. And it was also an incidence of holding that he likely didn't notice in the first place, which from everything I've been told and taught lowers the threshold for VAR intervention. I know the Czech league is still in the trial phase. None of this is easy and examples like these sort of vindicate UEFA's decision with the UCL. It takes a lot of training to get this right. Of course, we've seen some big mistakes even with training. All in all, it's still simply amazing that the World Cup pulled this off without major controversy (though, as we've discussed a few times, they sort of cooked the books a little with a combination of appointments and instructions).
Annulling the first penalty is completely ridiculous and I think possibly the worst use of VAR I have ever seen so far.